User talk:Leflyman/Archive2

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE OF MY TALK PAGE.

Post replies to my main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Next archival selection is User_talk:Leflyman/Archive3.

Lost character reformatting

Thank you for the encouragement

As to the character of Kate, the Kate Austin entry already existed as a redirect page. In addition, there's the context of the show itself. Kate is addressed as "Miss Ryan" by the manager of a bank she's helping to rob. The "Austin" surname is from the time capsule tape she made in her early teens. I don't know for sure, but it seems more likely that she would use her real name on the earlier occasion, rather than when she was already a wanted fugitive. (14:34, 9 September 2005 Bjones)

Yes, it probably would be a good idea to take it to the talk page, rather than make a snap decision now. There is the possibility that since "Born to Run" was one of the last episodes in season 1, the show publicity just hasn't caught up yet. The Ryan/Austin issue is worth discussing.Bjones

Lost (TV series)

Lost (TV series) does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It is not a redirect. It is a disambiguation page. Even if it were a redirect, it still would not meet the criteria because it has "useful history". "No useful history" usually refers to a redirect that has maybe 2 or 3 edits (usually being minor). This one was an actual article prior to be changed to a redirect, and then finally a disambiguation page. K1Bond007 06:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost history

In case you didn't see this at Talk:Lost (2004 television series):

The article now at "Lost (2004 television series)" was started on 20:16, 21 September 2004 (at "Lost (television drama)", I think, and moved from there to "Lost (ABC TV series", and thence to the current location). A duplicate article had been started on 04:00, 23 August 2004 at "Lost (TV series)", and at 18:52, 5 November 2004 that second article was merged into the first one (your comment move all the content gives the impression it was a simple cut-n-paste, but it wasn't).

Noel (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar!

In recognition of excellence in editing Lost (TV series)

Hey, Leflyman!

I'm still enough of a Wikinewbie that getting a barnstar puts a big grin on my face. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe 20:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar... my first. I guess if, at this point, if I was going to earn one, it has to be for Lost, considering better than 90% of my edits are in and around those pages! Although, in all honesty, you deserve one for your dedication and hard work on these pages too. In fact, if it weren't for your prodding, I might have continued my extended vacation. I say you deserve one too! :) Baryonyx 21:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
YAY! Thank you!!! :) Danflave 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Jtrost 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Hi. You have written a number of comments on Talk:Pseudoreligion which make accusations about my fitness to edit. I am happy to recieve criticism, but please do so on my talk page. Talk:Pseudoreligion is for the discussion of the article Pseudoreligion.

I have directed you toward ad hominem as you have used this logically fallacious argument ad nauseam on the aforementioned talk page. To summarise: ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself (additionally, argumentum ad nauseam is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition).

To exemplify the flawed reasoning you have used, an equal counter-argument ad hominem could claim that the article you wrote is false because of your religious intolerance. It is clear to see that this argument is extraneous, in that it has not concentrated on the content of the article in question to determine the claim of falsehood. Additionally, I have no accurate way of judging your stance on the subject, so the implication therein is insubstantial as well as being grossly impertinent.

I think that the resolution of the dispute at Talk:Pseudoreligion will benefit greatly from mutual respect as well as a level of comprimise from both sides. I hope you agree. Sincerely Spooky Donkey 16:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive response at User_talk:Spooky_Donkey#Pseudoreligion

Lost edits

Hello Leflyman, thanks for the heads up at the Lost section. I'm not arguing about removing my thoughts, it has happened before, it will happen again, both to me and others by me. I just think that every piece of information should be written in Wikipedia, especially the most trivial ones that add a great flavor to the show - and everyone should be able to have Wikipedia as a resource for those, don't you think? I suggest then to let information that is not erroneous and serves the progress of theories discussion around the plot of Lost, exist in the article. Otherwise "superfluous" information like that wouldn't be in the show! I find it strange how one book is mentioned and the other is not. They are both seen in 203, both serve no purpose yet only one is mentioned. And FYI, just because this account is new doesn't mean that I'm new at Wikipedia too ;) It's just my real name. Phoebus 09:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leflyman. I should have posted on the discussion page before I posted on the article. Is there a place on Wikipedia tracking the number references in the show? Or possible therories as to their significance? Cultofpj 15:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV concerns at Silver RavenWolf

I responded at the Talk:Silver RavenWolf page. Can you check there and clarify your concern? Thanks. Jkelly 05:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work at Zionist Terrorism

Sup, thanks for fighting the good fight. Wiki-dhimmi's can be darn obnoxious sometimes. Klonimus 09:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist terrorism

Unbehagen is now no longer objecting to the paragraph based on a claim of "original research", but now is insisting that he needs citations, ignoring the many citation on the Talk: page. Would you mind taking another look? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his focus is extremely narrow, his knowledge of the techniques of reverting is impressive, and his references to policy are copious - all very suspicious. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Yuber/Alburuni to me. Could someone investigate?

RfA you might be interested in

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite

Klonimus 02:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Rutherford

I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to judge content disputes (the IP was originally blatantly vandalizing the article, but switched to its current contributions after I placed the warning), but I left a 3RR warning at the IP's talk page, and told them to discuss any future additions on the talk page. If they insert the same material again, I (or another admin) should block them for 24 hours. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 22:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at WWIN

I've added my comments to your proposal. Great idea, by the way. I'm glad you posted it. Baryonyx 03:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just now got around to adding my comments as well. Strong support; thanks for proposing this. An odd discussion ensued on WWIN, though, I felt... -- PKtm 00:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost proposal

(See Talk:Episodes of Lost (Season 2)#Sources) I just created a new template, Template:Episodes of Lost (Season 2) Table, and put it at the top of Episodes of Lost (Season 2). If we protect that template, no one will be able to add info about future episodes except admin! Do you agree with this plan? Thanks. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding. I learn something new about Wikipedia every few days, it seems. Great idea. PKtm 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Names

Could you explain why you see the need to excise Christian Shepard, & Shannon Rutherford from the character section. It is not original research, and the source of their name's is just as evident as the other names. In addition, had you read the comment assosciated with Gary Troup, you would have paid attention to it. If he is included in the Lost in Other Media section, he can be included in the character names, as his name does for purgatory when rearranged. User:Synflame

More Lost Fun!

Hey, Leflyman. Just wanted to drop you a note letting you know that I've posted a brief overview of our problems with the Fan Speculation section at DDG's Talk page. There hasn't been a 3RR rule break yet, so I'm not sure what can be done besides alerting an admin, but I'm particularly annoyed that this person changes the warning every time he posts his "theory" so he can claim he doesn't know why we're removing his stuff.

If I said that this is exactly why I never wanted this section in the first place, would you be surprised? :) Baryonyx 16:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to the punch on the 3RR. He managed to slip in another change before being blocked, but I reverted it (giving me 2 today, so I'm done for now). I've also added a comment to the top of the Talk page for Lost, which gathers all the policy/guideline links we keep having to point to in one handy spot at the top of the page. Let me know if you think any are missing. Baryonyx 18:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like your proposal for Wikipedia is not a fansite, and I also now concur with your assessment of the Story Elements section on the main series page (and feel that the Characters page needs a major reworking). The story elements section has apparently become an excuse for anyone to offer up their own perceived elements, and it probably needs to go. Question is, how can we make it gone without having an edit war erupt? A vote on the talk pages perhaps? Baryonyx 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]